I'm not onto it when it comes to the world scene so this may sound stupid. But is the concern that they are testing nukes and therefore polluting the environment, or that they may use nukes on another country or incompetently land a nuke on Japan when testing? Or that it will encourage other idiots (middle east/Asia) to follow?

Although if you were the evil dictator of a country and America had declared that you were a part of the "axis-of-evil" and they had already invaded one of your "axis" members surely you would be keen to develop some defensive weapons.

The North Koreans are only a couple of years away (at most) at basically guaranteeing that they will not be able to be invaded.

Amd personally I can't blame them. George Bush has basically all-but said that they were next on the list.

Personally I believe that there is more chance of the USA using nuclear weapons than North Korea anyway.

i think its somwhat hypocritical, that its ok for 8 other nations to have a shitload of nuclear weapons, but soon north korea build some, everyone goes nuts, north korea has said they only have nuclear, as a deterrant from an american invasion, as bush infamously and stupedly said it was on the axis of evil, i cant see north korea using the weapons on say south korea or japan unless it was provoked, cos it knows it would get f***ed from every angle. much like jenna does vegas.

the only worry i have now, is that nation like south korea and japan may feel obliged to strengthen there nuclear capabilities, leading in an arms race.

i think military action is a no no, cos north korea will use it. negotiations must be forthcoming and incentives must be met, they are a potentially dangerous dangerous nation and huge threat to world peace. hopefully china will put a **** load of pressure on them. the thing is, though, if they did decide on a un combined military operation it would be more touble than its worth. it could a spark a nuclear attack worse than hiroshima.

Although if you were the evil dictator of a country and America had declared that you were a part of the "axis-of-evil" and they had already invaded one of your "axis" members surely you would be keen to develop some defensive weapons.

The North Koreans are only a couple of years away (at most) at basically guaranteeing that they will not be able to be invaded.

Amd personally I can't blame them. George Bush has basically all-but said that they were next on the list.

Personally I believe that there is more chance of the USA using nuclear weapons than North Korea anyway.
[/b]

Click to expand...

sure mate.
the only reason why NK or iran want to have the nuclear weapon is to be able to say to the western countries : you will now have to listen to us when we say something ... its to have power on the international decisions. its because of our foreign politics to **** on everybody. they were fed up of us shiting on them. i can understand their opinions (even if their inside politic is a huge pile of crap).
You know there are only 3 nations in the world that are declared agressiv : USA (you all had guessed, i can bet) + UK + Israel. you will say there is also libaneon ... no the only hesbola ... al qaida is not a country and so on ...
we collect what we sowed and especially the US !!! they do whatever they want. even the UN can't say anything (see the irak war). and now ppl in that country are beginig to say : what the f*** did we do, they had no weapons there.
USA went to irak for the only petroleum.

Well, if my neighbor is carrying around a nuclear bomb, I wouldn't exactly call him "weak." That's the problem. The DPRK (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea) is lead (or held captive) by a crazy man (Kim Il jung). Mr. Kim ("I'm so ronley") is off his rocker.

He is said to have a library of 20,000 Hollywood movies and to have even written a book on the cinema. He even went so far as to engineer the kidnapping, in 1978, of a South Korean film director and his girlfriend.

This taste for the exotic apparently extends to gastronomy.

Konstantin Pulikovsky, a Russian emissary who travelled with Mr Kim by train across Russia in reported that the North Korean leader had live lobsters air-lifted to the train every day which he ate with silver chopsticks.

The two men shared champagne with a bevy of female companions of "utmost beauty and intelligence", according to Mr Pulikovsky.

Personally I believe that there is more chance of the USA using nuclear weapons than North Korea anyway.
[/b]

Click to expand...

Really? I don't see that happening. The problem with the countries that have nukes is that they are all basically in one of those crazy movie scenarios where everyone has a gun pointed at everyone else. So if one party pulls the trigger, everyone else will. That's the problem with nuclear weapons (or any WMD). Since we already have that scene in play, why would you want a crazy North Korean midget joining in...he just might fire.

<div class='quotemain'>
I'm really not sure what the concern is as North Korea are weak.
[/b]

Click to expand...

Well, if my neighbor is carrying around a nuclear bomb, I wouldn't exactly call him "weak." That's the problem. The DPRK (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea) is lead (or held captive) by a crazy man (Kim Il jung). Mr. Kim ("I'm so ronley") is off his rocker.

He is said to have a library of 20,000 Hollywood movies and to have even written a book on the cinema. He even went so far as to engineer the kidnapping, in 1978, of a South Korean film director and his girlfriend.

This taste for the exotic apparently extends to gastronomy.

Konstantin Pulikovsky, a Russian emissary who travelled with Mr Kim by train across Russia in reported that the North Korean leader had live lobsters air-lifted to the train every day which he ate with silver chopsticks.

The two men shared champagne with a bevy of female companions of "utmost beauty and intelligence", according to Mr Pulikovsky.

Personally I believe that there is more chance of the USA using nuclear weapons than North Korea anyway.
[/b]

Click to expand...

Really? I don't see that happening. The problem with the countries that have nukes is that they are all basically in one of those crazy movie scenarios where everyone has a gun pointed at everyone else. So if one party pulls the trigger, everyone else will. That's the problem with nuclear weapons (or any WMD). Since we already have that scene in play, why would you want a crazy North Korean midget joining in...he just might fire.
[/b][/quote]

did u read what i wrote ??? seems not ... i said they wanted the bomb to have power in the international decisions and to be considered. its strategic before being agressiv. but with this western f****** thing of controlling everything, we should not be surprised of the rest of the world saying us f*** !!! we collect what we sowed !!!

this kim guy, he has his lackeys fly all over the world to suit his expensive tastes! when he's in the mood he'll send someone to say "XXXXXXXXX" prefecture to procure THE most expensive and THE best sushi and have it brought back to him...and some other nice foods from some other far flung country! being a despo does have its perks!!!!

<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
I'm really not sure what the concern is as North Korea are weak.
[/b]

Click to expand...

Well, if my neighbor is carrying around a nuclear bomb, I wouldn't exactly call him "weak." That's the problem. The DPRK (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea) is lead (or held captive) by a crazy man (Kim Il jung). Mr. Kim ("I'm so ronley") is off his rocker.

He is said to have a library of 20,000 Hollywood movies and to have even written a book on the cinema. He even went so far as to engineer the kidnapping, in 1978, of a South Korean film director and his girlfriend.

This taste for the exotic apparently extends to gastronomy.

Konstantin Pulikovsky, a Russian emissary who travelled with Mr Kim by train across Russia in reported that the North Korean leader had live lobsters air-lifted to the train every day which he ate with silver chopsticks.

The two men shared champagne with a bevy of female companions of "utmost beauty and intelligence", according to Mr Pulikovsky.

Personally I believe that there is more chance of the USA using nuclear weapons than North Korea anyway.
[/b]

Click to expand...

Really? I don't see that happening. The problem with the countries that have nukes is that they are all basically in one of those crazy movie scenarios where everyone has a gun pointed at everyone else. So if one party pulls the trigger, everyone else will. That's the problem with nuclear weapons (or any WMD). Since we already have that scene in play, why would you want a crazy North Korean midget joining in...he just might fire.
[/b][/quote]

did u read what i wrote ??? seems not ... i said they wanted the bomb to have power in the international decisions and to be considered. its strategic before being agressiv. but with this western f****** thing of controlling everything, we should not be surprised of the rest of the world saying us f*** !!! we collect what we sowed !!!
[/b][/quote]
Yeah...I did read what you wrote. I, however, commented on others statements. I do agree with you on the control thing. I don't know where you live, but you should hear the retarded ideas bouncing around in the States.

Nah, it was a failure though, his test wouldn't have even matched the basic bombs tested in the Desert and exploded in Japan in WWII.

Originally posted by Stupid Froggiesure mate.
the only reason why NK or iran want to have the nuclear weapon is to be able to say to the western countries : you will now have to listen to us when we say something ... its to have power on the international decisions. its because of our foreign politics to **** on everybody. they were fed up of us shiting on them. i can understand their opinions (even if their inside politic is a huge pile of crap).
You know there are only 3 nations in the world that are declared agressiv : USA (you all had guessed, i can bet) + UK + Israel. you will say there is also libaneon ... no the only hesbola ... al qaida is not a country and so on ...
we collect what we sowed and especially the US !!! they do whatever they want. even the UN can't say anything (see the irak war). and now ppl in that country are beginig to say : what the f*** did we do, they had no weapons there.
USA went to irak for the only petroleum.